Csi Computech INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Facts

The Petitioner, CSI Computech India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 28, 2023, by which its bank accounts were provisionally attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The attachment was effected through letters dated May 22, 2023, addressed to four different banks: State Bank of India (Vashi Turbhe Branch), State Bank of India (Abhilasha Chokdi Branch), IDBI Bank Ltd., and HDFC Bank Ltd. The Petitioner contended that under Section 83, provisional attachment is limited to one year and lapses thereafter. The Respondents, Union of India and another, were represented by counsel. The matter was initially adjourned to enable the Respondents to take instructions.

Held

The Court noted the Petitioner's contention that provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, is limited to one year and lapses thereafter. The Respondent's counsel, after obtaining instructions, conceded that the provisional attachment made via communications dated May 22, 2023, had indeed lapsed as more than one year had passed since their issuance, in accordance with Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the Court directed that the four banks to whom the communications were addressed should be informed of this lapse. The concerned Commissioner, Ravindra R. Bangar, or his successor, was ordered to issue a communication to the banks, to be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2024, stating that the provisional attachment had lapsed and the accounts should be treated as de-freezed. The banks were instructed to act upon a copy of the Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's bank accounts, made vide communications dated May 22, 2023, has lapsed by operation of law, specifically Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, given that more than one year has elapsed since the said communications were issued? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid only for a period of one year and automatically lapses thereafter. Therefore, the attachment in question had expired. Revenue's Contention: The Respondent's counsel, after taking instructions, conceded that the provisional attachment had lapsed as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, as more than one year had passed since the communications were sent to the banks.